Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1887-03-17
AbOuf Wool Waste"

chants Association, protesting against
the classification of so-called ring wastes
and other secured woods, has fallen into
our hands. and for the information of
farmers and others we give it space that
IN our judgment is we'll taken up. 1t is
rightly claimed that the decision of the
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury that
because these various semi-mannfactur-
ed secured woods are commercially
known as waste, that they should, d,there-
fore, be classified as waste, which pays
only ten cents per pound duty is altor
gether unwarranted. they being. in
point of fact. highly puriIied article OF
secured wool which pays 80 cents per
pound duty.
Such rulings work incalculable injury
to the wool growing industry of the
United States, as millions of pounds of
secured wool are imported under the
name of waste, paying but ten cents per
pound duty. We quote from the cir
cuiar:
The Philadelphia Wool Merchants
Association respectfully and earnestly
protest against the classification of sol
called Ring Waste, thread waste or gar
netted thread waste as Waste" as such
classification defeats the intent Of the
law and virtually admits TO our ports
secured wool at one-third "a of the
intended duty. We, therefore, urge
that all such stock imported as so called
ring waste, thread waste or garnetted
thread waste, now paying duty of ten
cents per pound, be hereafter CLASSIFIED
and made dutiaole the same as secured
wool, for the following reasons:
l. So-called ring waste is secured
wool. and can, with little or no prepara'
ton, be used in the production or manu-
facture of goods, the same as other
secured woods, without re-scOuring and
without requiring any mixture OF any
other material.
2. The class of stock in the intent OF
the law classed as WASTE" is merely
refuse from the cards or other machin>
cry, and not adapted for using again IN
manufacture without the admixture Or
good material, in the same manner as
5hoddy or muDgo are used wide sample
No. A. while 81 called ring waste if
secured wool "a direct portion of the
"top." free from any extraneous matter
and can be used as secured wool with
out further washing, and by itself
alone without any mixture with other
material.
3. We urge the classification of So
called ring waste as secured wool TO
prevent foreign manufacturers convert
ing into the class of waste" (paying
only ten cents per pound dGtyD the
product of worsted machinery in the
shape of this so-called ring waste,
thread waste, or garnetted thread waste
which is again used the same as the orig
inaI secured wool.
4. We urge the classification of So
called ring waste as secured wool on
the same argument as was used by your
department in the decision in the case
of J Basch & Sons, July 13, 1888 (34.-
6S4) This is parallel Case for the
same reasons then named by the de
partment to wit: The following princl-
ples are laid down. This article must
pay the same duty as the wool from
which it comes. 1t comes from wool
that has been secured, and the duty,
should be assessed upon it at the rate
imposed by law as secured wool, and is
not dusiabla under the schedule of
wooden rags. mungo, waste, etc.
5. That your dicisiOn of April 20,
1885 (96s3,l of the HockanuE company
classifying wool waste imported per
" "komaH," January rs, 1885. as secured
wcoi, also applies equally to this so-eaH-
ed ring waste, exactly as it did to that
case, being made of secured wool. The
value of this so-called ring waste in
Liverpool per late quotatiOnsis is "a pence,
OF about 4S cents;the price of Australian
tops" is also quoted the same. Surely
it is not the intent of the law that an
article 80 valuable and useful Was to be
classified and made dutiable the same as
wooden rags, shoddy. mungo, etc.
6. That the so-called ring waste shall
be classified as secured wool, for the
reason that il is portion of the top,
free from any exLraneous matter; anu Is
the cream of the wool, suitable as
before stated for all purposes and uses
to which other secured wool can be
applied.
I Noils are unquestionably now prop,
erly assessed at the same duty as the
wool from which they are made. There
fore. as this so-called Ring Waste is the
cream of the wool and as valuable. if
not more so, for manufacturing pur
poses than noils, we claim that in JUS
tice this so-called ring waste should
likewise be classified as the secured
wool from which it is made.
8. We hold that so-called ring waste
should pay the same duty as secured
wool for the reason that, as before stst+
ed, the quoted market value of so-called
ring waste now in Liverpool is equiTa
lent to that and Top" from which it is
produced, showing clearly that it is
of equal value in manufacturing. The
quoted market value of said tops" at
this date is "a pence, and which is now
assessed at duty of 60 cents per pound
while the quoted market value of So
called ring waste is the same, or "a
pence, and which is now assessed at
only ten cents per 1b duty.
Why should there be snch wide dis
elimination when this so>called ring
waste can be used for the production of
top" or other goods? Surely, if not
really dutiable the same as tops" 1t
should be assessed at least at the same
duty AS other secured wools.
o. We, therefore, urge the department
to forbid the classification of any article
of SO manifest value and use as So
called ring waste. thread waste, or gar
netted thread waste as waste" which
is merely an inferior refuse, classed
with wooden rags, shoddy, mungo
etc, etc.